Judgment :- Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to make regular payment of pension with retrospective effect. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of writ petition are as follows: (i) Ex-Gunner Chabilal-Petitioner was enrolled on 03.03.1978 for a contractual period of 17 years in colour and 02 years in reserve. On completion of Military Training at Artillery Centre Nasik Road Camp he was posted to 61 Field Regiment on 02.06.1979 and discharged from service on 25.05.1992. After rendering 14 years 82 days Petitioner was discharged from service as undesirable by Army Headquarters letter No. A/13210/159/AG/PS-2(C) dated 212. 1988. (ii) As per Rule 132 of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961, the minimum period of qualifying service required for earning service pension is 15 years. Since the Petitioner had rendered only 14 years and 21 days of qualifying service and 61 days non qualifying service, it was stated that Petitioner is not entitled to service pension under the Rules. However at the time of discharge from service the Petitioner was paid the following amount under the Rules: (a) Army Group Insurance Maturity benefits – Rs.18,840/- (b) Death cum Retirement Gratuity - Rs.21,630/- (c) Final Settlement of Account - Rs. 435/- (d) Armed Forces Personnel Provident Fund - Rs.19,839/- 3. Challenging the non grant of pension, learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.A.Sarangabani, contended that Petitioner had served 14 years and 82 days and the last year ought to have been reckoned as one full year and the Petitioner ought to have been granted pension. It was further submitted that denial of pension is unjust and in violation of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961. 4. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr. V. Balasubramanian SCGSC, submitted Petitioner had only 14 years and 82 days of service Petitioner was qualified for only 21 days 61 days non-qualifying service. Learned counsel for the Respondent would further submit that during his service, Petitioner was in the habit of committing offences and that he was chronic absentee and he was awarded punishment atleast five times. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner was habitual offender and he has shown utter disregard to the military discipline and set a bad example for other disciplined soldiers in the unit and therefore Petitioner was rightly discharged from service w.e.f 25.05.1992. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner was habitual offender and he has shown utter disregard to the military discipline and set a bad example for other disciplined soldiers in the unit and therefore Petitioner was rightly discharged from service w.e.f 25.05.1992. 5. On behalf of the Respondent, reliance was placed upon W.P.No.14096/1995 in Sardar RamSingh vs, UOI, Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was filed after five years. It was also submitted that similar view was taken by Delhi and Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench at Jabalpur declining grant of pension on the ground of delay in making claim. It was submitted that the present writ petition has been filed nearly 12 years after the discharge from service. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for the pension on the ground of delay also. 6. Admittedly, Petitioner served Army for 14 years and 82 days. Out of 82 days 21 days service is said to be qualifying service and 61 days non-qualifying service. According to Respondents as per Rule 132 of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961, Part-I, the minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) required for earning service pension is 15 years. On behalf of the Respondent it was mainly argued that Petitioners service falling short of 15 years is not entitled for pension. 7. Grant of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the State but is governed by the Rules made in that behalf. In matters of welfare legislation, especially involving labour, the terms of contract and the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of the weak. 8. Observing that Courts are to adopt liberal interpretation of pension Regulations. In 2005 (2) TLNJ 290 N. Venkatramani vs. Indian Bank and another, First Bench of this Court has held that the last spell of service can be treated as one full year and that employee was entitled to get pension. After liberal interpretation, First Bench of this court has held as under:- "16. In the Judgment reported in 1985 (4) SCC 325 [Workman of Messers Binny Ltd v. Management of Binny Ltd and another], the Honble Supreme Court, while interpreting the provision of payment of Bonus Act, has held as under in para 9 "9. ...... After liberal interpretation, First Bench of this court has held as under:- "16. In the Judgment reported in 1985 (4) SCC 325 [Workman of Messers Binny Ltd v. Management of Binny Ltd and another], the Honble Supreme Court, while interpreting the provision of payment of Bonus Act, has held as under in para 9 "9. ...... It is trite law that in matters of welfare legislation, especially involving labour, the terms of contract and the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of weak....." 20. In the Judgment reported in "1992 Supp (I) SCC 664 equivalent to " AIR 1992 SC 767 (All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others v. Union of India and others), the Honble Supreme Court has held that – "the concept of pension is now well known, that it is not a charity and that it is in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee". 21. Further, while dealing with the claim for pension based on the interpretation of the Regulations, it will have to be held that the construction of the Regulation which would achieve the object of the Regulation should be made. In other words, it is well known canon of construction that an interpretation of a provision in respect of a beneficial piece of legislation one should always construe it in a manner that would fulfil the object and purport of the legislation. ....." 9. In the present case Petitioners actual qualifying service comes to 14 years and 82 days. From 82 days 61 days is said to be excluded from qualifying service and the Petitioner has 21 days of qualifying service in the 15 years. Applying the ratio of decision of the First Bench, the last spell of service can be treated as one full year and the Petitioner is entitled to get pension. 10. In so far as plea of delay is concerned as held by the Honble Supreme Court in ( AIR 1992 SC 767 ) All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others vs. Union of India and others, payment of pension is not a charity and that it is in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the evening of life while adopting liberal interpretations. The Petitioner cannot be deprived of the pension merely on the ground of delay. The Petitioner cannot be deprived of the pension merely on the ground of delay. Of course because of the delay, the Petitioner may not be entitled for interest for the arrears from the date of discharge of the duty. Delay cannot be a reason for denying the pension to the Petitioner. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to process the pension papers and disburse the arrears of pension and the pension amount payable to the Petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.